JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. These six (6) writ petitions raise a common issue and therefore the same are being decided together. The relevant Assessment Years are 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. By way of these writ petitions the petitioner (PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited) has sought the quashing of the notices issued on 02.08.2013 under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟).

2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the said Act was conducted on 27.03.2012 on the Jaipuria Group. It is the case of the Revenue that during the said operation certain documents “belonging” to the petitioner were found. Consequently, the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group prepared a Satisfaction Note dated 29.07.2013 to the effect that the documents mentioned therein belonged to the petitioner. It is thereafter that the Satisfaction Note as well as the said documents were symbolically handed over to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. We use the expression “symbolically handed over” because of the fact that the Assessing Officer of the Jaipuria Group and the Assessing of the petitioner was one and the same person. It is thereafter that the said Assessing Officer issued notices to the petitioner, all dated 02.08.2013, under Section 153C of the said Act seeking to reopen the assessments of the petitioner for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 153A of the said Act.

3. In response to the said notices, the petitioner submitted its objections on 09.10.2013. Those objections were rejected by an order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the action taken and proposed to be taken against the petitioner, has filed these writ petitions seeking the quashing of the said notices under Section 153C of the said Act.

4. Before we examine these writ petitions in detail it would be pertinent to point out that recently in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, WP (C) No.415/2014 and other connected matters, this court had occasion to examine the very provisions which are under consideration in the matters before us. In the judgement delivered on 07.08.2014 in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after examining the provisions of Sections 153C, 132(4A)(i) &

292C(1)(i) of the said Act, this Court had observed as under:

“6. On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person. It is only then that the Assessing Officer of the searched person can handover such document to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person (other than the searched person). Furthermore, it is only after such handing over that the Assessing Officer of such other person can issue a notice to that person and assess or re- assess his income in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. Therefore, before a notice under Section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person. The second step is – after such satisfaction is arrived at – that the document is handed over to the Assessing Officer of the person to whom the said document “belongs”. In the present cases it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the first step itself has not been fulfilled. For this purpose it would be necessary to examine the provisions of presumptions as indicated above. Section 132(4A)(i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that such document belongs to such person. It is similarly pro